Palestine Action Activists Stand Trial for Factory Raid in Filton 2026

Key Points

• Five people were put on trial for criminal damage and violent disorder in the Woolwich Crown Court following a raid in the early hours of the morning of 6th August 2024.
• The defendants include Qesser Zuhrah (21), Zahra Farooque (26), Kamran Ahmed (29), Heba Muraisi (31), and Liam Mullany (34). The five defendants are denying the allegations.
• According to prosecutor Deanna Heer KC, the black team wore black jumpsuits to overpower security guards, while the red team was smashing the equipment.
• Members of the black team allegedly used whips, hammers, and big kebab skewers, while they were throwing fireworks and smoke grenades at security guards.
• Nigel Shaw, a security guard, sustained injuries that included a 4 cm gash to the head and a blood blister after an attack by members of the black team in the Filton factory located near Bristol.
• A prison van was used to ram the perimeter fence, which enabled activists to smash computers and drones using sledgehammers and red paint.

Filton (Bristol Express News) October 3, 2026 – Five Palestine Action activists went on trial at Woolwich Crown Court on Friday, facing charges of criminal damage and violent disorder over a high-profile break-in at an Israel-linked arms factory in Filton, near Bristol. Prosecutors alleged that the defendants formed a tactical “black team” that used weapons, including whips and hammers, to intimidate and assault security guards. All five individuals have entered pleas of not guilty.

How Was the Elbit Systems Factory Raid Planned and Executed?

As reported by Haroon Siddique, legal affairs correspondent for The Guardian, and further detailed in reports by regional outlets, the early-morning raid on August 6, 2024, targeted the research and development facility of Elbit Systems, a defence technology firm whose parent company is based in Israel.

The prosecution outlined a meticulously coordinated operation split into two distinct factions. According to prosecutor Deanna Heer KC, as reported across multiple legal proceedings, an alleged blueprint of the raid discovered by police stated:

“Shut Elbit Down. This is our primary objective as Palestine Action. We can do that by sticking together and ensuring its destruction with our brains and muscle.”

As noted by Deanna Heer KC, the operation relied on a division of labour between a “black team” and a “red team”. The black team—consisting of the five defendants Qesser Zuhrah, 21, Zahra Farooque, 26, Kamran Ahmed, 29, Heba Muraisi, 31, and Liam Mullany, 34—wore black jumpsuits and had their faces covered. They were designated as “coverts” whose primary objective was to bypass security without getting caught and pave the way for the main operational unit.

Conversely, the “red team” wore red jumpsuits and acted as “overts”, tasked with breaching the inner buildings to inflict maximum structural and technological damage before law enforcement could respond.

What Allegations Have Been Made Regarding Violence Against Security Guards?

Detailing the confrontation outside the facility, Deanna Heer KC told Woolwich Crown Court jurors that the black team deployed aggressive tactics to neutralise resistance from site security personnel.

As stated by Deanna Heer KC, the black team’s assignment was to overwhelm the guards by “threatening, intimidating and, if necessary, assaulting” them. Prosecutors claimed that members of the group brandished unconventional weapons, including whips, hammers, and large metal kebab skewers, alongside throwing fireworks and smoke grenades.

Jurors were told that security guard Nigel Shaw sustained a 4cm laceration to his head during the melee. According to Deanna Heer KC, when one of the black team members was physically detained by a security guard, other members of the group swarmed and struck the guard until he released their colleague.

Footage played to the court showed that the black team used or threatened violence prior to the forced entry, utilising smoke grenades and cracking whips to keep guards at bay. Security guard Nigel Shaw was shown on body-worn video grappling with an intruder on the ground after having initially struck a member of the black team across the legs with an umbrella.

Explore More UK News

Entain Cuts 400 Jobs Amid Gambling Tax Hikes UK 2026

U.K. Unprepared For Extreme Heat, Commission Report Warns, London 2026

How Was the Break-In Carried Out and What Damage Was Caused?

According to evidence presented by the prosecution team led by Deanna Heer KC, the physical breach commenced at approximately 3.30 am when a prison van driven by a member of the red team smashed directly through the outer perimeter fence.

Following the vehicle, the black team rushed forward on foot, chanting slogans such as “Free Palestine” as the van broke through a second perimeter barrier at the site. Once inside the facility grounds, the red team moved into the warehouse and administrative areas to execute their destruction strategy.

Deanna Heer KC explained to the jury that the red team used fire extinguishers filled with red paint to coat walls and floors, while deploying crowbars and sledgehammers to demolish computer systems, electronic hardware, and drone components, alongside damaging a disabled facility toilet.

What Role Did the Defendants Play According to the Prosecution?

Outlining individual involvements, prosecutors highlighted specific logistical actions taken by the accused before, during, and after the raid.

As reported by local news correspondents, Qesser Zuhrah was identified by the prosecution as a coordinator for the black team whose responsibilities included recruitment, training, and encouraging individuals to join Palestine Action. Evidence presented to the court indicated that Zuhrah lost her white trainers at the scene while hurriedly fleeing over the perimeter fence.

Furthermore, the court heard that following the operation, Zuhrah circulated messages instructing black team members—including Liam Mullany and Kamran Ahmed—to disband the unit, dispose of action attire, dress any sustained injuries, and delete or withhold media recordings. Prosecutors noted that while activists published select GoPro footage of the interior damage online, video segments depicting the physical altercation involving Nigel Shaw outside the factory were intentionally omitted from public releases.

The trial before Woolwich Crown Court continues.

Background of the Development

The legal proceedings unfolding at Woolwich Crown Court represent a chapter in the protracted legal and societal confrontations surrounding direct action protests targeting defence manufacturing in the United Kingdom. Elbit Systems UK, a subsidiary of Israel-based international defence electronics company Elbit Systems, has repeatedly been targeted by activist groups such as Palestine Action. These campaigns intensified significantly following the escalation of the Israel-Hamas conflict, bringing intense public, political, and judicial focus onto corporate supply chains, domestic security protocols, and the legal boundaries of civil disobedience. The August 2024 incident at the Filton research and development facility triggered widespread police investigations, resulting in multiple waves of arrests and subsequent trials examining both the scale of property destruction and the methods employed against site security personnel.

Prediction

This legal development carries profound implications for activist organizations, corporate security management, and legal interpretations of public order offences across the United Kingdom. For civil disobedience networks and protest groups, a verdict heavily emphasizing violent disorder and the use of improvised weapons could severely restrict tactical planning, potentially leading to increased law enforcement scrutiny and harsher prosecutions for aggressive direct action. Conversely, for defence contractors and private industrial facilities, these proceedings highlight vulnerabilities in perimeter security, likely accelerating capital investments in advanced surveillance, fortified barriers, and enhanced guard protection protocols. Ultimately, the outcome of the trial will serve as a vital legal benchmark determining how British courts distinguish between protected political protest and organized criminal violence.